Well, Mr. Engwer has given it his best
shot. Yet, whether he realizes it or not, hes fallen
miserably short. He had the opportunity to ask me three
questions; two of which he wasted in order to
launch irrelevant, ad hominem attacks against the later history
of the Catholic Church. Yet, this was a debate about whether or
not Christ established the Papacy; and Mr. Engwer
has presented nothing which threatens my position. In my
opening statement, I said how I only needed to achieve two things
to win this debate: 1) Show that Jesus commissioned Peter with a
ministry to preserve the Churchs unity and orthodoxy; and
2) Show that this ministry was succeeded to by the Bishop of
Rome. Engwer has not overturned either of these truths. For
example, in regard to # 1, ...

Engwer says its unprovable that
the Key to the House of David in Isaiah
22:20-25 is the same concept as the Keys of the
Kingdom in Matt 16. Not so. In Matt 16:13,
Jesus asks Who do the people say that I
am? These are the people of Israel,
who do not know that He is their King. Yet, in v.16, Peter
confesses that Jesus is the Messiah: the promised successor
to King David. Thus, Jesus
makes Peter the prime minister of the remnant of Israel which
will believe in Him: the Church. Here, we
must note that the Greek word for Church
(Ekklesia) means those who are called
out. Thus, the Church will comprise those members of Israel
who will accept Jesus as their Messiah/King. This will be
Jesus House of David. And, within that House, Peter
holds the prime ministers Keys.

Engwer asks why its only one
Key in Isaiah 22 yet Keys (plural)
in Matt 16. Well, first, it is well known that Matthew
(unlike Mark or Luke) has a preference for the plural (e.g. Matt
4:3; 8:26; 12:46; 15:36). Also, in Matt 16, we are
dealing with a Heaven-earth relationship, rather than a mere
earthly kingdom (as in Isaiah 22). Thus, Peter holds two
Keys: one Heavenly and one earthly, since his Master is a
two-fold King: both the earthly successor to David and the
eternal King of Heaven.

Engwer also says that Jesus Himself
holds the Key of David in Rev 3:7. Well, of course. Just
as Jesus remains the true Shepherd (in Heaven) while Peter is
merely the vicarious shepherd (on earth), Jesus never
relinquishes total authority. Rather, He merely delegates
it to Peter, His servant. This is exactly the situation in Isaiah
22, where Eliachim holds the Key for King Hezekiah. Yet,
Hezekiah still ultimately holds the Key. Thus, were
not dealing with an either-or situation, but a
both-and situation. And, if you interpret Rev 3:7
any other way, then you are demoting Jesus from King to
prime minister.

Engwer again illustrates his problem
with context by asserting that Isaiah 22:25
shows that the Key is temporary. Nonsense. Rather,
this verse shows that there is succession to the ministry
of Key-holder, since Eliachim succeeds to Shebna.
It is only Shebna (a corrupt prime minister) who has personally
broken off and fallen (v.17). Yet,
the ministry itself remains.

Engwer says that the word used for
strengthen in Luke 22:31-32 is also used
elsewhere (e.g. Acts 14:22, 15:32, Romans 16:25) So what?
In Luke 22, Peter is told that he must strengthen the
other Apostles! Thats what makes his commission
unique. Thus, my interpretation stands. In both Luke 22
and John 21:15-19, Jesus commissioned Peter as the
vicarious shepherd over the flock in His physical absence.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts
15, I pointed out in my opener how Peter gives the definitive
teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end.
However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by
James, and says how James is the only one to render
judgment. Well, first of all, it must be noted that
James bases his remarks on Peters teaching:

Brothers, listen to me. Symeon
(i.e., Peter) has described how ... --Acts
15:13-14

Secondly, look at what James actually
says in relation to his judgment:

It is my judgment,
therefore, that we ought to stop
troubling the Gentiles --Acts 15:19.

Well, who is this we? Who
was troubling the Gentiles? Certainly not Peter (Acts
10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas.
So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

Some who had come down
from Judea were instructing the brothers,
Unless you are circumcised ..., you cannot be
saved.

It was the Jewish faction under
James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the
Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking
for them, not for the whole council. Indeed,
thats why his remarks are recorded at all --to show that
the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the
decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul
will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).

Yet, to argue for the primacy of
James, Engwer is forced to turn to the spurious
Pseudo-Clementina, from which Cullmann draws some very
selective quotes to show how Clement of Rome
supposedly answered to James. Yet, this is not
the testimony of orthodox Christians. If Cullmann wished
to see how orthodox Christians from the Antiochian
tradition viewed the primacy of Peter and his successor Clement,
he should have consulted the Syrian Liturgy for the Feast of St.
Clement, which reads:

He it is that sits upon the throne
of Peter, the Head of the Apostles,
in the capital Roman city and he became like unto
Peter even in power, the common
father of the whole flock of
Christ. (courtesy of Scott Butlers upcoming
book, The Keys to Christian Unity).

This is the ancient Aramaic
Liturgy of the Syrian Catholics, as well as the
Syrian Monophysites, who have been separated from Rome since 450
A.D.!

So, Engwer has produced nothing
to dispute the fact that Jesus commissioned Peter with a ministry
to preserve the Churchs unity and orthodoxy. Indeed, I
asked him in my opener to produce one Church father who denied
that Peter presided over the flock. Yet, all Engwer could produce
was the spurious Pseudo-Clementina. Thus, I rest my
case in regard to Peter. He clearly possessed the Papal ministry
as defined in our debate proposition.

As for claim # 2 (that the Bishop of
Rome succeeded to the Petrine ministry), Mr. Engwer has produced
nothing to challenge this either; but merely the same old smoke
and mirrors.

I asked Engwer to supply one example
of Rome receiving authoritative teaching and instruction
rather than consistently giving it. This he was unable to do.

I asked Engwer to supply an ancient
source which denies that there was an early bishop
of Rome or which says that Rome was governed by a body of
presbyters. Again, Mr. Engwer can produce nothing. Rather,
he invokes the opinions of so-called
scholars who came along 2,000 years after the fact.
Well, there are other (better) scholars who disagree with
the ones cited by Engwer. Thus, their opinions prove
nothing. Indeed, Engwer and his scholars keep
repeating how the evidence suggests, yet they never
produce this evidence for us.

For example, Engwer says that Jerome
speaks of a plurality of presbyters in his Epistle 146. But this
is the same Jerome who names Clement as Romes
monarchical bishop. Thus, once again, Engwer wrenches a father
out of context. Similarly, Engwer cites
Hermas reference to a plurality of leaders in
the early church of Rome. So what? Rome has a plurality of
leaders today, in the form of cardinals and numerous
auxiliary bishops. Yet, that doesnt mean there isnt a
final authority among them.

However, Engwer says that the NT speaks
of a plurality of bishops in Ephesus and Philippi.
That is very true. Yet, what Engwer and his scholars
have stumbled on here is merely a problem of terminology,
not of fact.

In the NT period, it is clear that the terms
"bishop" (overseer) and "presbyter"
(elder) were still fluent and used interchangeably (Titus
1:5-7, Acts 20:17-28) Yet, while the terms
"bishop" and "presbyter" were still
interchangeable, that doesn't mean that the NT-period churches
did not have monarchical leaders who were the chief shepherds and
final authorities in these individual city-churches.

For example, it is clear that James was
the monarchical leader of the Jerusalem church after Peter's
departure (Acts 21:17-19, Galatians 2:12) Its also
clear that Paul commissioned Timothy to be the monarchical
authority in Ephesus (1 Tim 5:19-22).

Yet, were these monarchical leaders
(these "arch-presbyters," if you will) exclusively
called "bishops" at this time? No. That would come
later, via the terminology of Ignatius of Antioch.

For example, we know that Ignatius
called Polycarp the monarchical "bishop of Smyrna," and
that Polycarp did not deny this. Yet, when writing to the
Philippians, Polycarp does not call himself "the bishop of
Smyrna," since that terminology was not yet
widely used. Rather, he begins his Epistle:

"Polycarp, and the
presbyters with him, to the Church of God
sojourning at Philippi

So, Polycarp is a presbyter among other
presbyters. Yet, that doesn't mean he's not the bishop. It
doesn't mean he didn't hold primacy in the church of Smyrna at
this time, since two separate epistles from Ignatius tell
us that he did.

"You must all follow the
bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the
presbyters as you would the Apostles. Reverence the
deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do
anything of concern to the church without the bishop."
(To the Smyrnaeans)

...and...

"Take care, then who belong to
God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop.
...For there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one
Cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one
bishop with the presbyters and my fellow
servants, the deacons." (To the Philadelphians)

So, despite what Engwer says, Ignatius always
used the term bishop to refer to the monarchical
leader of a church; and Ignatius never urges their
development, but instead speaks of the monarchical
episcopate as an established institution throughout the
universal Church. Indeed, Engwers whole position crumbles
when we invoke Chapter III of Ignatius Epistle to the
Ephesians, which speaks of bishops settled
everywhere, to the utmost bounds
of the earth. This means that all cities had
monarchical bishops presiding over the presbyters and deacons; including
the church of Rome. And, over a decade before Ignatius,
Clement of Rome himself testifies to this fact, when he writes:

"He (Jesus) has Himself fixed
by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires
for these celebrations ....For to the high priest (i.e.,
the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to
the priests (i.e., the presbyters) the proper place
has been appointed, and on the Levites (i.e., the deacons)
their proper services have been imposed. The layman is
bound by the ordinances for the laity. ...Our sin will not be
small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly
and holily have offered its Sacrifices." (1 Clement
44:4)

So, the three-fold ministry was always
there; including the office of bishop.

Yet, Engwer ignores this, even accusing
Hegesippus and Irenaeus of fabricating their lists of
Roman episcopal succession; calling their lists
anachronistic. Yet, need I point out that Irenaeus
and Hegesippus had ties of discipleship with the generation
before them (e.g. Polycarp)? Need I also point out that Irenaeus
(in the very same book) is also our earliest source
for the legitimacy of the 4 Gospels! Yet, Engwer is
calling this father a liar! And what of the Gnostic
heretics who Irenaeus and Hegesippus were trying to refute? If
the succession lists were fabrications, then the Gnostics could
easily have verified this, completely undermining the orthodox
argument. Indeed, Irenaeus directly challenges these heretics to
check the succession for themselves! So, Mr. Engwer insults our
intelligence.

Engwer also makes much ado about
supposed inconsistencies in the Roman succession.
Yet, he himself illustrates how this is solely in regard to the
first three bishops of Rome (i.e., Linus, Cletus, Clement).
Indeed, this one difficulty with the succession
comes from a Latin tradition that Peter personally
ordained Clement (e.g. Tertullians De Praescrip. Haer.
xxxii); and thus some Latin fathers insist that Clement was
Peters immediate successor, rather than the third to
succeed him. Yet, Clement himself gives us the solution, writing:

"Our Apostles (Peter and Paul)
knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife
for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore,
having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those
who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further
provision that, if they should die, other
approved men should succeed to their ministry."
(1 Clement 44)

So, Clement was one of these other
approved men. Thus, he was both personally ordained
by Peter (along with Linus and Cletus), while being the third to
actually hold the monarchical office. So, there is no problem
with the succession lists at all.

Engwer says that I fail to distinguish
between the church of Rome and the bishop of Rome
when speaking of Romes authority. Well, that would be an
artificial distinction, and alien to the view of early
Christianity. Indeed, Engwer illustrates a profound ignorance of
Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Sacramental ecclesiology, in
which the bishop of a church only possesses authority in his
ability to act In Persona Christi Capitas (In
the Person of Christ the Head). Thus, vicarious Head (the
bishop) and mystical Body (the church) act as one. There is no
distinction.

Engwer also attacks my position on Pope
Victors excommunication of the Asia churches in 190 A.D.,
quoting more scholars who assert how no one
thought it possible to excommunicate another church at this
time, and how Victors action does not suggest
universal Roman authority. Well, if thats what Engwer
thinks, I suggest he read Matt 18:17, where Christ gave
the Church the authority to excommunicate. I also suggest that he
go back and read what Irenaeus and Eusebius actually say
about this incident. Yet, since Mr. Engwer so loves modern
scholars, perhaps an account from the famous Protestant
Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, will do:

"At his [Victor's]
instigation, synods were held both at Rome and at other
centers, from Gaul to Mesopotamia, and
majority opinion sided with him. The
churches of Asia Minor, however, refused to abandon the
age-old Quartodeciman custom of observing Eastern on the 14th
of Nisan, whatever the day of the week on which it fell. Victor
thereupon proclaimed their exclusion from communion,
not simply with Rome but with the Church generally"
(The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 12).

So, Victor acted with universal
authority. And, even the Asian bishops who opposed his decision
never deny Victors authority to issue it. In this, Engwer
quoted Polycrates of Ephesus who, in response to Victor, echoes
the words of the Apostles in Acts 5:29: We must obey
God rather than man. These words were spoken to the High
Priest Caiaphas: the one in authority at the time (Matt
23:1-3). Thus, what Polycrates was saying is that the
Liturgical Tradition of the Apostle John was even greater than
the Popes legitimate authority. ...Which it
was. Thus Victor withdrew the excommunication.

Mr. Engwer also invoked the African
churchs condemnation (not
excommunication, as asserted) of Pope Vigilius during
the Three Chapters controversy in 550 A.D. Yet, like the spurious
Donation of Constantine and the Isidorian Decretals, this was
motivated by Byzantine imperial politics; and has
nothing to do with Christs establishment of
the Papacy itself.

Indeed, Mr. Engwers endless
irrelevancies, out-of-context quotes, and ad hominem attacks
should be enough to show anyone that he is not interested in
historical fact, but is merely an anti-Catholic propagandist,
committed to presenting a Papal boogie man to cast
suspicions on a hated Catholic Church. I predicted this in my
opening statement.

However, in deference to Mr. Engwer, it
must be admitted that we can never arrive at 100% proof for the
Papacys legitimacy by citing the historical evidence alone.
Yet, the same can be said for the Resurrection of Christ
and the Divine inspiration of the Bible. These things are matters
of faith; and must be explored as such.

In my opening statement, I showed how
Christ desires His Church to be one (John 17:20-21), and
how this Church was united in orthodoxy from earliest times (1
Corinth 1:10, 1 Peter 3:8). Also, it is clear that, before
the coming of Christ, the Jewish people lacked both unity and
orthodoxy (e.g. Acts 23:6-9). Indeed, in Matt 9:36-38
Jesus took pity on them because they were like sheep
without a shepherd.

So, is it reasonable to believe that
Jesus would leave His Church in exactly the same state as the
Jewish people before His coming? Is it reasonable to believe that
He would leave no one with the ministry to preserve unity
and orthodoxy after His Ascension? Is it reasonable that we
Catholics are apostate, given the fact that we are a
Church of 1 billion souls united under a solid and
consistent teaching authority, whereas true
Christians (i.e., Evangelicals and other Protestants) are
scattered and heterodox, following innumerable, contradicting
interpretations of Scripture? Remember, in John 17:20-21,
Christ prayed for His Churchs unity so that the world
may believe that You (the Father) sent me.

Yet, Mr. Engwer has no regard for such
unity. ...Unless, of course, it is founded upon his own
interpretation of the Scriptures. Yet, Christ founded His Church
upon Peter, not upon Jason Engwer. Thus, who are we to believe?
...The unbroken, 2,000-year-old testimony of the Catholic Church,
or someone who displays difficulty reading the Scriptures in
their proper context?! The Lord Himself said it: A
tree is known by its fruit.